by JIMO96 » 26 Feb 2012 Read
Some well thought out posts here, and passionate arguments to maintain the beautiful game as it is, all fully understandable.
I'm gonna stick up for the "change the rules" corner though. The fact that "gimmick" snooker has been rammed down our throats in recent years (6 reds, shot clocks, ball in hand, strike a cushion, reduced frames etc) tells me that broadcasters and sponsors aren't happy with the sport as it is. And when broadcasters and sponsors aren't happy, Barry Hearn will do all he can to comply with them; "the customer is always right" as Hearn says (I'm going to quote Hearn a lot in this post), and by customer, he doesn't just mean the ticket buying public.
So when I see this alarming trend for gimmickry, as a snooker fan, I can react in one of 2 ways:
1.....get all traditionalist and express utter disgust at the sheer horror of anyone daring to touch the sport I love
2.....accept that it's the 21st century, that bigger sports than snooker have adjusted in the past, and at least come up with some workable suggestions that could make our sport more attractive, whilst causing the minimum of cosmetic adjustment
And make no mistake, Hearn, for all the good he has done so far, will still react to commercial pressures for change...."we are a commercial sport" as he's been known to utter more than once. I just hope that any rule changes he adopts in the future aren't some of the ghastly ones we've been subjected to by Power Snooker, Premier League, 6-reds etc.
For me, an element of snooker that makes it unattractive, is negative play. I'm not talking long bouts of safety, I'm not talking 2 minute "shot times" (both necessary aspects of snooker, and not always negative).......I mean the deliberate "dirtying up" of frames to gain an advantage. You all know what I'm talking about and you all know who the culprits are. A journeyman who falls 0-3 behind to an 18-year old rookie, is going to "spoil" the next frame, make it last as long as possible, and make the table a mess to halt his opponents momentum. THIS is the kind of scenario which requires a rule change. Nobody wants to see this on TV, it's tedious, and (this is the bit Hearn will pay attention to) it EATS INTO THE BROADCASTERS AIR TIME.
As I've said on various forums, I don't have the answers, but I've made a few suggestions which I think might work. Shot clock isn't one of them; I believe there's a place for shot clocks, but it should be a novelty rather than the norm. My best idea is the adopting of a "hit a cushion" scenario, which would immediately close off a lot of (negative) shot options, and by punishing those who don't hit a cushion, severely limit turgid safety exchanges. It would put an end to re-racks, and with a little tweaking, confine the absurdly grey area that is the miss rule to history.
"you can't expect no change, or the game will die, and players will have to get jobs"......when Hearn says this, it means it's going to happen, like it or not, and I'd rather there were some positive suggestions being thrown about than the laughable traditionalist outrage that surfaces every time progress is mentioned. I want the game to succeed; people on here have suggested I "go and watch another sport" (except less politely), and others probably think I want to see 128 O'Sullivan clones on the tour......(for the record I can't stand him).
So the way I see it, you're either in the "things get done this way because they've always been done this way" camp, or you're set to embrace the changes and be as excited about the future of snooker as I am.